JORGE ROMERO v. FRANCISCO NUNEZ

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

JORGE ROMERO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

FRANCISCO NUNEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________

January 3, 2014

Submitted June 18, 2013 - Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Grall.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Docket No. L-4105-10.

Kendal Coleman, attorney for appellant.

Bastarrika, Soto, Gonzales and Somohano, LLP, attorneys for respondent (Franklin G. Soto, on the brief).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

GRALL, J.A.D.

Following a bench trial on a complaint alleging breach of contract and reliance on misrepresentations and on a counter-claim alleging failure to pay a promissory note, the judge awarded plaintiff Jorge Romero $113,000 plus $200 for costs, and he awarded defendant Francisco Nunez $20,000 plus $185 for costs. Subsequently, Nunez filed a motion for a new trial or remittitur, which the judge denied by order entered on April 23, 2012. Nunez then filed a notice of appeal indicating that this appeal is from the April 23 order, not the judgment.

Where a notice of appeal designates only one order and not a judgment, this court does not review the judgment or any order other than the one designated in the notice of appeal. R. 2:5-1(f)(3)(A); Sikes v. Twp. of Rockaway, 269 N.J. Super. 463, 465-66 (App. Div.), aff'd, 138 N.J. 41 (1994). Nunez raises three issues on appeal that are attacks on the judgment. But they are not properly before us.

The only issue raised concerning the April 23 order is a claim that "the court erred in not granting a new trial of remitt[i]tur." Nunez has provided a transcript of the trial testimony and of the judge's decision, but he has not provided a copy of his motion for a new trial or remittitur, a transcript of a motion hearing, if there was one, or the judge's decision on that motion. Thus, we do not have a record that gives us any basis for assessing Nunez's claim of error in denial of his post-judgment motion. Because that is the only order before us, we cannot conclude that Nunez is entitled to relief. See Soc'y Hill Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Soc'y Hill Assocs., 347 N.J. Super. 163, 177-78 (App. Div. 2002).

Affirmed.